Director-General Dept of Community Services (Central Authority) & S.H.R

The applicant father sought the return of his child to Italy under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth). The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing that the child's removal was not wrongful and that she had not consented to the child's return. The case was heard by Chisholm J.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether a document tendered as evidence was admissible under regulation 29(1)(a) of the Regulations, and if so, whether regulation 29(1)(a) was invalid due to inconsistency with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). Further issues concerned the interpretation of the Regulations, particularly the onus of proof and the application of regulation 16 where the court was not satisfied as to the child's habitual residence or whether the removal was in breach of custody rights. The central question was whether the child had been wrongfully removed from Italy to Australia and whether the father had consented to this removal.

Chisholm J considered the interaction between the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). His Honour found that regulation 29(1)(a) was not invalid by reason of inconsistency with the Evidence Act 1995, applying section 8(2) of the Evidence Act and sections 15A and 15AC of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The court also addressed the interpretation of regulation 16, clarifying the court's approach when certain preconditions for the application of the Convention were not met. The father was represented by Mr. A.L. Hill, and the mother by Mr. Cunningham.